About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me what attorney general holder is saying by implication is that the
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
marriage cases including doma, the defense of marriage act. our panel, newt gingrich, evan byah, jennifer rubin of the "washington post" and, fox news analyst juan williams. you oppose same sex marriage but want to see the court make a sweeping decision or a narrow decision to leave it where it is now in various state legislatures. >> they are making the point, look at the percentage of support. if that is true, over time the american people will indicate that through elections and primaries and referendums. they would be far better off to decide the cases on the narrowest possible grounds. >> chris: you wouldn't want to see a sweeping decision against -- >> a huge mistake and undermine respect for the judiciary. >> chris: senator, how far would you like to see the court go and how far do you expect them to go. >> it means trying to read the mind of justice kennedy and my guess is he'd be reluctant to strike down the laws of the 41 states that currently prohibit same sex marriage or allow civil unions. but, on the other hand, seize the broad sweep of history here, the direction the countr
possible. i'm sorry. i think they're going to decide it on the prop 8 case on -- and doma on standing. on who has standing to bring. especially doma. they'll decide it on a narrow -- that somebody doesn't have standing to bring the case and same with prop 8. so it will overturn it. it will overturn prop 8 in california. i think that's gone. without a doubt. but i'm going to hold out the big optimistic, just let everybody get married decision. i don't hope -- i hope for that but i don't believe it will happen. >> stephanie: what makes me nervous is whin you have somebody like a -- is when you have -- i was just doing a hernia test on jim. you have somebody like ruth bader ginsburg, she's pro-choice but roe v. wade did it create a backlash. that's a little unnerving right? >> right. except that i think the nation's ready for that. i mean you know, especially young people. what is it? 80% of young people are people under 30 -- that's young people. i feel so old. >> stephanie: all right grandpa. >> get off my lawn! >> stephanie: drop the prunes for a minute. go ahead. >> that they support
to look at the proposition 8 in california, and to declare it unconstitutional and also to repeal doma. these are two big cases. and it's going to have a major impact. >> terry, you cover the supreme court for us. it seems to put two justices especially in an interesting position, justice kennedy, the traditional swing vote for the justices. but maybe, even more chief justice john roberts, 58 years old, likely to be chief justice for a long time. you see how support for gay marriage has surged in the last year. even if he personally may be against it, he's likely to look and see, 10, 15 years, still sitting on the bench, it's going to be 70% support in the country. >> there's an institutional challenge to the court in the astonishing speed that the country has changed its mind. the people are way ahead of the elite. the president, when he ran for president was against gay marriage. the supreme court, was in a generation outlawed sodomy for gay people but not for straight people. they overturned that decision. he doesn't want to be that chief justice caught on the wrong side. at the sam
will do. >> i think the case against doma is extraordinary. i cannot imagine the court not declaring it unconstitutional. in fact, i am so hopeful i think we might even get a 6-3 vote out of this. >> bill: wow. >> because in one since you could make the conservative case that the federal court was messing in state's business. from a conservativeview point, you could possibly vote against it. i think the prop 8 case is very much up in the air. it's interesting to me that the court took it on because it could have just let the lower court decision stand which would have declared it unconstitutional for california. why did they check it out? i don't think it's to overturn the lower court's decision and i don't think that we will see them proclaiming marriage equality nationwide. >> yeah. >> what i do think is is that they will overturn -- excuse me. they will affirm prop 8s unconstitutionality for california but they will be doing it as a way of signalling to the country that marriage equality for all is on its way. >> right. >> that will be a great statem
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
by the state's voters in 2008. justices will also consider the 1996 defense of marriage act or doma that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. the central claim in both cases is that plaintiffs were denied equal protection of the law. later today a panel of attorneys who have been active in the debate and litigation will give a preview of what to expect by the high court. the event is hosted by george washington university law school, and you can see it live beginning at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on "first ladies," called a bigamist and adulterer, rachel jackson dies of an apparent heart attack before andrew jackson takes office. his niece, emily donaldson, becomes the white house hostess but is later dismissed as fallout from a scandal. and during the next administration, angelica van buren is the white house hostess for her father-in-law, president martin van buren, who is a widower. of live tonight at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> a hearing now by a house foreign affairs subcommittee on the threat of hezbollah,
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)